What Is Man?

Various | September 25, 2003 | betty boop

[betty boop]

The Platonic Soul

It is fitting to give Plato the first word on the question, “What Is Man?” For Plato was the first thinker to isolate man out of his connection to clan and tribe, making the human individual -- man as he is in himself -- a proper subject of investigation.

This shift of attention to the individual psyche marks a decisive, revolutionary break with the characteristic habits of thought of the ancient world, the cosmological consciousness, which conceived of man mainly in terms of his connections to units larger than the individual, and envisioned a cosmos filled with gods. For Plato’s life-long meditation on the psyche – the human soul -- was deeply implicated in his speculation on the nature of the divine, which radically departed from the Hellenic people’s myth of the gods. Psyche also was the basis of Plato’s life-long meditation on “the best possible” political order.

Platonic thought can probably best be understood as a kind of spiritual autobiography. Great philosopher that he was (perhaps the greatest), Plato was not a “system builder”; he did not propound any positivist doctrine on any subject at all.

This aspect of Platonic thought is difficult for the modern imagination to grasp; for when we moderns think of a “philosopher,” we think of an intellectual who investigates propositions about truth and draws conclusive answers about the objects of his investigation. The philosopher then assembles his insights into systematic form allegedly useful in telling us about the real nature of things. (Plato called this sort of thing “philodoxy,” – love of transitory opinion -- the specialty of the Sophists, his adversaries. He would not call it “philosophy” – love of wisdom. This issue, however, is beyond the scope of the present essay.)

Although Plato is usually classed as an Idealist, his own instinct in philosophizing was uncompromisingly Realist, in the sense that he knew that certain questions can never be “closed” in principle. For the truth of existence, of Reality, is the object of zetesis -- of a search or quest -- that cannot be completed by any human being in the time of his own existence. Rather, it is a quest engaging all mankind proceeding through countless generations. Plato could point out the way. But the student must engage in the quest by and for himself, and understand it as he experiences it, according to his love for divine things.

On that note, we turn now to the consideration of psyche proper. Plato conceived of the individual human being as psyche-in-soma: an eternal soul incarnated in finite bodily existence.

The soul has a characteristic structure, a hierarchy of dynamic forces: the rational element, whose ordering power is sophia, wisdom; the spirited, whose ordering power is andreia, or manly virtue/courage; and the appetitive, whose ordering power is to “feel the pull” of physis, or bodily nature. The well-ordered soul is the healthy integration of the three forces, giving each its proper role and function.

In addition to elaborating a hierarchy of forces in the soul, the Platonic meditation also elaborates its hierarchical “structure”: At psyche’s “summit” is nous, intellect; followed by the conscious mind – including feeling, sensation; and “at bottom,” the unconscious mind, with its root in the “depth” of the soul, in which the soul’s “ground of being” can be found.

I’ve used a lot of quotation marks in the above passage for a reason. To use language like this is to intend as reified objects what are really processes on-going in the soul. We aren’t speaking of “thing-like objects” here. Processes aren’t things at all. But they are real all the same.

With that caution in mind, we have, so far, a “force field” and a “structure” for the soul, and importantly, the suggestion that the soul ought to be well-ordered.

And so the question arises: By what criteria does the soul order itself? And why would it even want to order itself?

To answer such we questions, we have to remember that the Platonic speculation maintains the immortality of the soul. The soul coming into bodily existence, however, does not remember its pre-existence at all; for at its birth into the present existence, the “circuits of the brain” become “deranged,” so the soul cannot remember anything about its life prior to its birth in this one. So it comes as a shock to the soul to discover that its body will die someday. The anxiety is acute, for the soul does not yet realize that its life is not dependent on the body, and is not destroyed with the body.

It is here (The Republic) that Plato inserts a drama in which the soul must act, the Pamphylian myth.

In the myth, “dead souls” – that is, souls separated from the body at physical death – receive reward or punishment according to their conduct in life, the bad souls going to their suffering beneath the earth, the good souls to their blessed existence in heaven. Then, after a thousand years, all the dead souls are brought into the Judgment of Lachesis, the daughter of Ananke (Necessity). And there the dead souls must draw their several lots and choose their individual fate for their next period of incarnated existence:
 

Ananke’s daughter, the maiden Lachesis, her word:
Souls of a day! Beginning of a new cycle, for the mortal race, to end in death!
The daemon will not be allotted to you; but you shall select the daemon.
The first by the lot, shall the first select the life to which he will be bound by necessity.
Arete has no master; and as a man honors or dishonors her, he will have her increased or diminished.
The guilt is the chooser’s; God is guiltless.

Now a soul that had just spent one thousand years in purgative punishment in the netherworld would be most anxious to choose his daemon rightly, lest at the conclusion of the next life, he find himself returned to the suffering below for another thousand years. On the other hand, the blessed souls do not necessarily make better choices than the purged souls. And they are just as liable to wind up in punishment in the next round if they do not choose wisely.

But choose they must, and thereby bind themselves to their fate over the next cycle of life and death. A soul’s only guide in the choice is the character it had acquired during its preceding life. The choice is free, but the wisdom to make a good choice may be deficient. Under the circumstances, the best course would be to make the best choice one can, and then follow Arete – Virtue. To “diminish her” – to dishonor her call to justice, temperance, courage, love of wisdom, zealous search for true being – is to incur culpable guilt. The daemon is there to warn the soul when it wanders from Arete, endeavoring to push the soul up into the light.

The daemon might be thought of as the mediator or agent of cosmic spiritual substance in the soul, a little spark of the divine in man. Plato’s symbol for the divine substance is the Agathon, the Good.

The Agathon is utterly transcendent, so immanent propositions about it cannot be constructed in principle. Yet the soul, in an act of transcendence, may have a vision of the Agathon, of its eternally divine goodness, purity, beauty, truth, and justice. Such experiences of transcendence inform the soul, building up its just order by fortifying the Arete in the soul.
Thus the soul is drawn upward into the light of the vision of the Agathon, and participates in the divine life so far as that is possible for a man.

It is important to bear in mind that the Agathon is not God. Though Plato often refers to the One God “Beyond” the world of created things, and “Beyond” the generations of the intracosmic gods (the gods of the Age or Chronos, subsequently replaced by the Olympians under the rulership of Zeus), and strongly suggests that the Logos of divine Nous is the ordering principle of the Cosmos, he does not elaborate. That elaboration had to wait for the Revelation of Christ.

For Plato, the vision of the Agathon was the basis of the idea of the human family, of a common shared humanity, of the idea of the brotherhood of mankind. As Eric Voegelin noted (Order and History, Vol. III, Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1957), “The understanding of a universal humanity originates in the experience of transcendence; and the ineffable kinship of men under God revealed in the experience can immanently be expressed only in a myth of descent from a common mother or father….”

In this, Plato seems to anticipate St. Paul’s one body of Christ, interjecting the idea that, despite their differences, all men are equal as brothers in the sight of God.

For Plato, the daimon-mediated tensional suspense of the soul “in between” (metaxy) its cosmic ground in the “depth” of the soul and its extracosmic height in a transcendental “beyond” in the one God, was the site and sensorium of human spiritual reality. The form of the metaxy might be seen as a faint foreshadowing of the mediating process of Christ in the salvation and perfection of the soul, uniting souls to the Father through Himself, as declared by Christian revelation, most clearly in John’s Gospel.

It is possible to imagine that there are certain seed ideas in Plato that could not come into full bloom until Jesus Christ irrupted into human history four centuries after Plato’s death.
 

The Great Hierarchy of Being

The Platonic answer to the question “What Is Man?” must take into account man’s place in the great hierarchy of Being: God-Man-World-Society. All the members of the hierarchy are in dynamic relation, mutually unfolding the cosmic pattern set up “in heaven” as an eternal cosmic process of being-in-becoming over time. Man’s place in the hierarchy is special; for man is the microcosm, or eikon (image or reflection) of the cosmic Logos manifesting creation as the intent of divine Nous. Man’s soul is the site of the intersection of time and timelessness, of the changing and the changeless, of being and becoming, of life and death, of the tensional play of freedom and necessity.

And man is unique among creatures, for he alone possess nous; and thus is capable of being drawn to the paradigm of divine Nous -- to the contemplation of divine things. Thus man is uniquely capable of ordering his soul according to the divine paradigm, in justice and in love. And by a process of transcendence, to attain wisdom, freedom, and true Being in the contemplation of the divine Idea, the Agathon.
 
 

[betty boop]

Ok, since you disagree...what, exactly, did you add to bring salvation to His elect?

Am I now the "issue" here, HalfFull? You want to talk about me? What would be the point of that? I never claimed to be bringing salvation to anyone. I am not God!!!

[HalfFull]

The great work of Salvation has NOTHING to do with any work we do. -Me

Well I suppose that we will disagree about this, HalfFull. Of course, this is the very point of contention between Orthodox and Reformed Christianity.

Ok, since you disagree...what, exactly, did you add to bring salvation to His elect? -Me again

Am I now the "issue" here, HalfFull? You want to talk about me? What would be the point of that? I never claimed to be bringing salvation to anyone. I am not God!!!

No, Betty...you are not the issue, and I am not trying to make it personal. But, you said that you disagreed with what I said...that is, "The great work of Salvation has NOTHING to do with any work we do".

So, since you dissagree, I ask again....what specific work do you, me (or any other person) add to bring salvation to His elect? Your argument is that Christ's work on the cross is not enough. What other work is required for salvation? Please be specific. Thank you.

[Alamo-Girl]

Here’s a few verses to help draw the distinction I think you are making between what God has done and what we must do:

Involuntary:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. – Romans 8:29-30

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:42-43

I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. - John 10:14-17

Voluntary:

Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. - John 10:25-28

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:46-48

But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. – Hebrews 11:6

[Hank Kerchief]

...we can never fully comprehend the Father, not ever! That would be to make oneself of equal or greater stature.

Absolutely, A-G! We see "as if through a glass, darkly."

1 Cor. 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Now don't get on me, you guys, I'm only quoting the verse and aksing a question. In light of your protests about our limited knowledge, what can this verse mean?

Hank

[betty boop]

1 Cor. 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

We have "the mind of Christ" when we are fully formed in Him, by Him. But not before. And we cannot attain it on our own.

And we can only know what the human mind can know. Christ knows more than that.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree with all of your points, betty boop! Thank you for the question, Hank!

All I have to add is that the capacity to receive Spiritual knowledge is different between Christians:

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. - Hebrews 5:7-14

[betty boop]

Your argument is that Christ's work on the cross is not enough. What other work is required for salvation?

It is not my argument that Christ "is not enough"!!! Christ is everything, and without Him we are nothing. But He calls us, He comes to us -- are we who are "nothing" become "something," when we answer to His call.

The "work" required for salvation is to accept the Lord, and to live in the Lord. For humans, this is "work," indeed -- in the sense that it is not easy for a man to subdue his natural passions, perceived self-interest, and bodily desires, to put himself into Christ's "yoke," and to be ordered in and by God. It takes humility, and the spirit of submission engendered in and by the love of the Lord, our Savior, Jesus Christ.

To say otherwise would be to make the divine sacrifice on the Cross wholly pointless.

This is hardly a subtle concept, HalfFull. Why do you seem to be struggling with it so?

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree! Here are some supporting Scriptures:

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. - 1 John 2:4

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast [them] into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. - John 15:4-8

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23

[betty boop]

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for the on-point excerpts from scripture. How I do love John!

[HalfFull]

This is hardly a subtle concept, HalfFull. Why do you seem to be struggling with it so?

Please don't be angry, but I'm Not struggling with it at all...just trying to get a consistant answer. You did say back in post 317, didn't you, that you disagreed with my statement that Salvation has NOTHING to do with any work we do.

So...do we now agree?...Christ's finished work on the Cross IS all that is requred for the justification of the believer? (By justification I mean as Unger defines it: a divine act whereby an infinitely Holy God judicially declares a believing sinner to be righteous and acceptable before Him because Christ has borne the sinner's sin on the cross and has become "to us . . . righteousness")

[HalfFull]

AG, for someone who is on your virtual ignore list, you seem to be willingly inserting yourself into my discussions with another poster. If you think your insinuations (i.e., personal attacks) are being missed by me, your are mistaken.

You have asked me not to post to you or comment on your posts to another. I ask you for the same consideration. Thank You.

[f.Christian]

Salvation and sanctification are apples and oranges ... some people confuse glorification too --- real problems here doing that !

To do so is .... pharaseeism - cultism --- anti gospel - christism !

[betty boop]

Christ's finished work on the Cross IS all that is requred for the justification of the believer? (By justification I mean as Unger defines it: a divine act whereby an infinitely Holy God judicially declares a believing sinner to be righteous and acceptable before Him because Christ has borne the sinner's sin on the cross and has become "to us . . . righteousness")

All of this is true -- in the case of a believing sinner who keeps God's commandments: (1) To love God with one's whole heart and soul and mind; and (2) one's neighbor as one's self -- for the love of God.

It is not enough merely to believe in the Holy Scriptures, is my point. One must be re-formed in Christ.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! I love John also!

[HalfFull]

OK...thanks for your answer. We agree on most of the issue.

And thanks, also, to that mysterious poster who unfairly reported my actions to JR as a personal attack. I try hard to keep personal attacks out of my posts and have the courage to debate without pushing abuse because I simply disagree with another poster.

[betty boop]

You've been a fine correspondent and very civil to me, HalfFull. I think we all need to move on and "let bygones be bygones." Thank you so much for writing!

[JesseShurun]

I didn't mean you personally. It was a reference to mystics. However, now I have received a message from Jim Robinson to remove my comments elsewhere. The forum is now all yours, all the time. Now you can present your gnostic Christianity without any fear of correction. So much for honest and open discussion, thanks a lot, on behalf of true bible believing Christians everywhere

[betty boop]

Alamo-Girl, thank you so very much for posting the story about Martin Luther.

I read a bit about Luther's life in Jacques Barzun's excellent From Dawn to Decadence. It was said there that Luther had gone through a very dark period of intense spiritual suffering that lasted quite a long time, as he was struggling to come into conformity with Christ. He had somehow become convinced he was utterly lost of God, utterly damned. Finally, by the grace of God, he learned otherwise, was able to emerge from that desperate state of spiritual isolation and suffering, and "put on the new man" in Christ.

Clearly, from the passages you posted, Luther was prepared to accept martyrdom rather than break faith with the fruits of grace and the Holy Spirit that came out of that dark struggle in his soul -- mediated, I am sure, by Christ Jesus.

Fortunately, God had other plans for him....

Thank you so much for writing!

[f.Christian]

hugs ... more hugs --- extra hugs !

[DittoJed2]

Betty, please do not flag me to this thread or the rest of the creationists. Several of our names were reported to JimRob and as a result we are on the verge of having our posting privileges revoked. As such, I'd prefer not to be drawn in any further to this fray. Thank you. DJ2.